it. That way I don't
> have to check for
> changes.
>
> Just curious if I am missing some hidden issue that
> will only come out and
> byte me later.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Hubbach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 3:
ff Hubbach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 3:47 PM
To: Orion-Interest
Subject: Fw: Re: J2EE Security issue...
repost..
One thing we added to what Rabi is doing is as follows:
We track version with each object. If the user object is already on the
session
then we get it off
repost..
One thing we added to what Rabi is doing is as follows:
We track version with each object. If the user object is already on the session
then we get it off and double-check to make sure that the version on the session
is the most up-to-date. If it isn't, then we refresh that object on the
I had the same issue. We did do it as a filter. However we checked to see if
the a user context object (ie object where the informaiton was stored)
existed in the session. If not then checked to see if the user was logged
in. If not then skip setting up the object. Works pretty good.
-Origina
You might try to make a custom UserManager that delegates to the default
one, and then performs some actions.
Aaron Tavistock wrote:
> We've been using J2EE based security for some time now, its working great
> for us supporting several hundred users distributed across a handful of
> servers.
